SecretAgentMan wrote:Depends on your league, but in my league, laisse faire nonsense allowing some one to trade an elite first or second rounder player for multiple pieces of far less talent (none of which even comes close to a top 8 round pick I might add here) is not allowed and will get vetoed. You can never prove "collusion" so unless you believe owners can do whatever they want no matter how idioitc they are, you have to draw the line somewhere and this is way over it imo. The 2 for 1 or 3 for 1 is ripe for this type of abuse imo and if you want to maintain the integrity of your league, this kind of things needs to be discouraged. This would not even be a good dump trade at the deadline for a team re-building let alone to start the season.

I tend to lean towards your side here. I never quite get the whole stance "you shouldn't veto unless its collusion". I am curious how many times some one has actually been able to prove collusion. Unless you hack someone's email account or tap their phone, you are never going to get the smoking gun where Manager A tells Manager B "Give me Kershaw for some rubbish and I'll give you $50 when I win the league".

I am not veto happy, and I am not even sure exactly how to describe my philosophy behind vetoing other than if I think the trade is offensive to the integrity of the league I would veto. In my league you need a significant majority to veto a trade, so I feel that if enough managers have a problem with the trade it should probably be reworked. That being said no-one likes Veto happy managers, I'll agree with that.

I would start by asking the managers for at least an explanation for the reason behind this trade. I think this trade is lopsided enough that you as commish are entitled to it. Just from looking at the roster, I can't see why the team trading Verlander thinks its a good move for his team at all, but maybe he can explain it to you. I would start there. The team acquiring Verlander will have Kershaw, Verlander, Greinke and Moore, that staff will beast your league!

How would I approach this deal and rule on it? As I Commissioner for 12+ years, I've seen about every type of trade known to man.

This one is a tricky one and generally involves a more experienced manager dealing with a less-experienced manager. The guy getting Justin Verlander (arguable THE BEST pitcher in baseball) is clearly taking advantage of the other guy by dangling 1 good SP and 2 marginal players.

I seldom approve vetoes in my leagues as I think you got to let people manage their own teams without acting like the KGB, but I would probably axe this one. However, if they resubmitted a trade along the lines of Verlanderfor Sandoval, Carpenter and Izturis, I'd let it fly. Give the guy a better option at 3B and this can be a deal. The guy getting Verlander STILL comes out on top but this is manageable and fair. Trades are seldom, by the numbers, dead-even. There is always going to be a winner and loser in everyone's eyes.

Bravesfan1975 wrote:How would I approach this deal and rule on it? As I Commissioner for 12+ years, I've seen about every type of trade known to man.

This one is a tricky one and generally involves a more experienced manager dealing with a less-experienced manager. The guy getting Justin Verlander (arguable THE BEST pitcher in baseball) is clearly taking advantage of the other guy by dangling 1 good SP and 2 marginal players.

I seldom approve vetoes in my leagues as I think you got to let people manage their own teams without acting like the KGB, but I would probably axe this one. However, if they resubmitted a trade along the lines of Verlanderfor Sandoval, Carpenter and Izturis, I'd let it fly. Give the guy a better option at 3B and this can be a deal. The guy getting Verlander STILL comes out on top but this is manageable and fair. Trades are seldom, by the numbers, dead-even. There is always going to be a winner and loser in everyone's eyes.

I agree with this. Its funny I've played in leagues with people from here and online everyone says "never veto unless collusion" but as soon as its their team being effected in the league, people come out of the woodwork claiming a trade is unfair.

You can't let ridiculous trades go through. If you have a weak manager, you have to not let him be abused to the detriment of the league. Be aware though, if you let him play in the league, you have to let him play. So my opinion is if you have to veto or re-work two or more trades to save the same person, then you kick them out of the league. Once a manager has proven himself as a good manager, you should be more lenient in respecting their trades

I am in the camp that thinks you should only veto for obvious collusion. If I am in a league, I want to run my team. I don't want Big Brother looking over my shoulder telling me what I'm doing is stupid. While I think you could get more for Verlander, I don't think it is that horribly lopsided. Carpenter is coming off a down year, and is likely undervalued. Aybar may be poised for a breakout into a top 10 SS. and Encarnacion? Well, we don't call him E9 for nothing (yeah, I got nothin there).

I don't think it unreasonable to talk to the Owners to gain perspective on what their rationale is. However, I don't think it is a commissioner's job to protect an owner from themselves by force.

The way our league handles controversial trades,1, the commissioner(the defending champion from last year) put the trade on hold, it's up to the commissioner to decide how long the leash is.2, Both sides of the trade, especially the alleged victim, explain the reason behind the trade. 3, Meanwhile, every owner has a chance to publicly offer a proposal between his own team and the 'victim' side.4, a) If the 'victim' chooses to accept a new offer or simply withdraw the original one, problem solved.b) If no competitive offer put on the table, let the original trade pass, a big boo for the commissioner's poor judgement.c) If there's clearly a better offer and the 'victim' still sticks to the original one, the commissioner has the final say, either turn down the original deal or let it pass. Yes, it's still a judgement call at this stage. This scenario has never happened in our league though.